Evaluation of Siting An HTGR Co-Generation Plant On An Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Site

INL/EXT-11-23282
Revision 1
Next Generation Nuclear

Plant Project Evaluation
of Siting an HTGR
Co-generation Plant on
an Operating Commercial
Nuclear Power Plant Site
October 2011
DISCLAIMER
This information was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an
agency of the U.S. Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any
agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed
or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness, of any information, apparatus, product, or
process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
owned rights. References herein to any specific commercial product,
process, or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer, or otherwise,
does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation,
or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views and
opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect
those of the U.S. Government or any agency thereof.
INL/EXT-11-23282
Revision 1
Next Generation Nuclear Plant Project Evaluation of

Siting an HTGR Co-generation Plant on an Operating
Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Site
October 2011
Idaho National Laboratory

Next Generation Nuclear Plant Project
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415
http://www.inl.gov
Prepared for the

U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Nuclear Energy
Under DOE Idaho Operations Office
Contract DE-AC07-05ID14517
ABSTRACT
This paper summarizes a scoping evaluation of siting a high temperature gascooled reactor (HTGR) cogeneration plant at the Waterford Steam Electric
Station in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. This hypothetical evaluation was
performed by the Idaho National Laboratory Next Generation Nuclear Plant
Project. The feasibility of locating the HTGR plant on the Waterford site was
evaluated considering the size of the HTGR plant boundaries, expected exclusion
area boundary of the plant, ability to construct the plant on the site with emphasis
on the nature and depth of required excavations and site preparation, use of water
extracted from the Mississippi for turbine generator condenser and other
auxiliary cooling needs, availability of water for other plant needs, and ability to
receive and transport large vessels and other major components such as turbine
generator shells and rotors to the HTGR plant site. This assessment concludes
that the Waterford site appears to be viable for siting the HTGR plant.
This evaluation was conducted as part of NGNP Project assessments of the
feasibility of siting the HTGR to support different industrial applications under
different site conditions. For example, in other similar work, the NGNP Project
has evaluated siting the HTGR within or close-by existing petrochemical
facilities, and performed scoping analyses for siting a plant in a remote area
supplying steam, electricity, and high temperature gas for recovery and
upgrading of unconventional crude oil. This evaluation of the Waterford site
continues this work by evaluating the viability of siting an HTGR plant on an
existing nuclear power plant site. The Waterford nuclear power plant site was
selected for this evaluation because it is located in an area of significant
industrial activity with potential off-takers of steam and electricity supplied by
the HTGR plant.
vi
SUMMARY
This paper summarizes a scoping evaluation of siting a high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR)
cogeneration plant at the Waterford Steam Electric Station in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana.a This
evaluation was performed by the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Next Generation Nuclear Plant
(NGNP) Project. This site currently includes the Waterford 1 and 2 natural gas, Waterford-3 nuclear, and
Waterford 4 diesel electric generation plants. This evaluation was conducted as part of NGNP Project
assessments of the feasibility of siting the HTGR to support different industrial applications under
different site conditions. For example, in other similar work, the NGNP Project has evaluated siting the
HTGR within or close-by existing petrochemical facilities, and performed scoping analyses for siting a
plant in a remote area supplying steam, electricity, and high temperature gas for recovery and upgrading
of unconventional crude oil. This evaluation of the Waterford site continues this work by evaluating the
viability of siting an HTGR plant on an existing nuclear power plant site. The Waterford nuclear power
plant site was selected for this evaluation because it is located in an area of significant industrial activity
with potential off-takers of steam and electricity supplied by the HTGR plant.
The feasibility of locating the HTGR plant on the Waterford site was evaluated considering the size
of the HTGR plant boundaries, expected exclusion area boundary of the plant, ability to construct the
plant on the site with emphasis on the nature and depth of required excavations and site preparation, use
of water extracted from the Mississippi for turbine generator condenser and other auxiliary cooling needs,
availability of water for other plant needs, and ability to receive and transport to the HTGR plant site
large vessels and other major components, (e.g., turbine generator shells and rotors).
The location and energy needs of industrial plants (potential off-takers) close by the selected site were
identified and assessed for supply by an HTGR plant. This effort included determining the annual energy
consumption of these industrial plants through review of data collected and published by the U.S.
Department of Energy/Energy Information Agency. Meetings were also held with The Dow Chemical
Company to elicit their interest in considering the HTGR as a long term energy supply and the types and
amounts of energy that they require.
Once the energy needs of potential end users was understood, a conceptual HTGR plant design was
developed with the capability to meet these energy needs, including forms of energy, reliability and
availability. Scoping analyses were performed for this plant design to evaluate the economic viability of
this application.
In support of this evaluation, a separate site assessment was performed by NGNP Project Licensing
that considered health and safety, environmental and sociological, and other important siting
characteristics to determine the potential impact of identified hazards and potential challenges presented
by the location for licensing this technology with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
a.
The Waterford station is currently owned by Entergy Louisiana, LLC (ELL) which is a regulated utility. INL conducted its
feasibility assessment of the Waterford station based on publicly available information. As this study is merely an effort to
determine feasibility of locating a HTGR at an existing commercial nuclear site, as opposed to assessing commercial
viability of such a project of Waterford, INL did not attempt to determine whether ELL was interested in locating a HTGR
co-generation plant at Waterford station or the terms on which it would be interested. Accordingly, nothing in this report
should be construed as ELLs consent to locate such a project at Waterford station or to waive its rights to distribute and sell
electricity to customers in the vicinity of Waterford or throughout the 46 parishes in which it provides electric service in
Louisiana. While ELL co-operated in this site feasibility study, the views expressed herein are those of INL and not ELL.
This study assumes a business model where an HTGR plant owned by a stand-alone entity would be located at ELLs
Waterford station and would sell heat, steam and electricity to nearby industrial concerns and sell excess electricity to
regional utilities and others. The generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity implicates a number of federal
and state laws, rules and regulations. It is beyond the scope of this feasibility study to analyze whether the assumed business
model is consistent with or permitted by such laws or whether it improperly infringes on the exclusive rights of area utilities,
including ELL, to distribute and sell electricity on the retail market.
vii
The technical, hazards, and economic evaluations summarized in this report do not identify any
conditions that would prevent locating an HTGR cogeneration plant on the Waterford site. For the
purposes of this evaluation it was assumed that this plant could supply steam and electricity to the plants
located within 1-1/2 miles of the selected HTGR plant site and excess electricity for sale to regional
utilities. The plant design selected has a thermal rating of 3,600 MW(t) comprised of six 600 MW(t)
HTGR nuclear heat supply systems. The plant can supply up to ~3 million lb/hour of steam and
500 MW(e) to industrial facilities and 750 MW(e) of electricity to the regional grid or other local
facilities.
It should also be noted that the HTGR technology can be applied in an electricity only application,
similar to that of the electricity generating plants on the Waterford site. In this regard, the high
temperature operation of the HTGR can achieve higher net generation efficiencies (40 to 50%, depending
on the power conversion system deployed) than current light water reactor technologies (~33%). The
modularity of the HTGR nuclear heat supply system also provides flexibility in sizing the plant and in the
scheduling of build out of the plant to correspond with demand growth or retirement of other generation.
The benefits of applying the HTGR technology include the elimination of greenhouse gas emissions
that result from the use of natural gas and waste gas in the current energy supplies used by industrial
facilities, long term security of the energy supply, and long term stability in the price of the energy. Based
on scoping economic analyses, the HTGR cogeneration plant energy price would be equivalent to a
natural gas price in the range of ~$6/MMBtu (2011$) based on mature (nth-of-a-kind) HTGR plant cost
estimates and projected prices of electricity and steam generated using natural gas combined cycle plants.
This scoping evaluation provides a basis for a more detailed site feasibility study by any interested
entities. Such a feasibility study would include early discussions with the owner of the site, Entergy
Louisiana, LLC (ELL), to determine whether and under what terms an HTGR co-generation plant could
be located at Waterford, and to resolve the concerns raised by ELL.a Discussions would also be necessary
with potential end users of the energy in the area to determine their interest in using the HTGR energy
source. The site feasibility study would more thoroughly address the considerations identified in this
evaluation and perform detailed economic evaluations using the applicable algorithms and financial
factors. If a Project was undertaken to develop the cogeneration plant, the pursuit of an NRC Early Site
Permit should be seriously considered, since this process could provide a relatively inexpensive method
for resolving site-related issues early in the licensing process.
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by Idaho National Laboratory as part of the Next
Generation Nuclear Plant Project with the cooperation of Entergy Louisiana,
LLC, the owner of the Waterford site, and significant support from Entergy
Nuclear, Inc., which suggested use of the Waterford site for this evaluation and
supported its completion by directing INL personnel to required information,
answering questions on specific characteristics of the site and reviewing drafts of
this report. INL wants to thank Entergy Louisiana, LLC for making the
Waterford site available for this evaluation and Entergy Nuclear, Inc. for the
support in completing it. Idaho National Laboratory also wants to thank The Dow
Chemical Company for their support of this evaluation.
ix
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................................. v
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................ vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................... ix
ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................................. xv
1.
INTRODUCTION/SITE/SCOPE ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Site to be Evaluated.................................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Evaluation Scope...................................................................................................................... 3
2.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS......................................................................... 5
3.
EVALUATION FOR SITING AN HTGR PLANT AT WATERFORD-3 ....................................... 8

3.1 Location and Specific Site Characteristics Affecting HTGR Plant Siting ............................... 8
3.1.1 Property Description ................................................................................................... 8
3.1.2 Purchase/Lease Options (Provided by ELLs Real Estate Department) ................... 10
3.2 Excavation.............................................................................................................................. 12
3.3 Cooling Water Supply ............................................................................................................ 14
3.4 Transportation and Handling of Large Components .............................................................. 15
4.
POTENTIAL ENERGY OFF-TAKERS .......................................................................................... 17

4.1 General ................................................................................................................................... 17
4.2 Union Carbide ........................................................................................................................ 17
4.3 Taft Cogeneration Plant ......................................................................................................... 18
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................... 19
4.5 HTGR Plant Rating Alternatives ........................................................................................... 19
5.
NOTIONAL HTGR PLANT DESIGN ............................................................................................ 21

5.1 HTGR Rating ......................................................................................................................... 21
5.2 Plant Layout and Configuration ............................................................................................. 22
5.3 HTGR Cogeneration Plant Schedule ..................................................................................... 25
5.4 Assumed Business Model ...................................................................................................... 27
5.5 Costs ....................................................................................................................................... 27
5.6 Pricing of Energy ................................................................................................................... 29
6.
PRELIMINARY SITE HAZARDS ASSESSMENT ....................................................................... 35

6.1 Summary of Results ............................................................................................................... 35
6.2 Interactive Considerations between HTGR and Waterford-3 ................................................ 36
6.3 Other Considerations.............................................................................................................. 36
6.3.1 Early Site Permit ....................................................................................................... 36
xi
7.
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 37
FIGURES
Figure 1. The Waterford site north of Highway 3127................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Waterford site and major industrial plants east of Waterford-3. ................................................... 3
Figure 3. Composite survey of Waterford 1, 2, and 3 sites. .......................................................................... 9
Figure 4. Preferred site for the HTGR plant. .............................................................................................. 10
Figure 5. Relationship of preferred and alternative sites for the HTGR plant. ........................................... 11
Figure 6. Example of nuclear heat supply system embedment. .................................................................. 13
Figure 7. Waterford-3 cooling water intake and discharge structures. ....................................................... 14
Figure 8. Reactor pressure vesselthe largest vessel anticipated to be used in the HTGR.
[General Atomics 911118,RPV and IHX Pressure Vessel Alternatives Study Report,
April 2008] ............................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 9. A Typical heat transport system vessel. [AREVA, 12-9076324-001 RPV and IHX Ves
Alt_INL.pdf] ................................................................................................................................ 16
Figure 10. Major industrial facilities located within 5 miles of Waterford-3 nuclear power plant............. 17
Figure 11. Waterford HTGR cogeneration plant. ....................................................................................... 21
Figure 12. Preconceptual layout of a 4-NHSS module HTGR plant (Visio file: Waterford-Eval Plant Layouts, Variations in the Number of Modules 8-17-11)................................................ 23
Figure 13. The four-module layout on the preferred location. [Visio file: Waterford-Eval - Plant
Layout] ..................................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 14. The six-module plant layout on the preferred location. [Visio file: Waterford-Eval Plant Layout] ............................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 15. The 10-module layout on the preferred location. [Visio file: Waterford-Eval - Plant
Layout] ..................................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 16. HTGR cogeneration plant deployment schedule. ...................................................................... 26
Figure 17. Business model. ......................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 18. Per unit capital costs versus module and plant ratings. ............................................................. 29
Figure 19. Comparison of HTGR Prices with natural gas plant [Excel file Economics 6-600
MW(t) IRR Variation 10-26-10]. ................................................................................................ 31
Figure 20. Effect of variations in key economic parameters on the price of electricity. ............................ 32
Figure 21. Effect of variations in key economic parameters on the price of steam. ................................... 32
Figure 22. Electricity price, $/MWheprobability distribution and statistics. .......................................... 33
Figure 23. Steam price, $/1,000 lbprobability distribution and statistics. ............................................... 34
TABLES
Table 1. Dow Union Carbide steam and electricity production2009 and 2010. ..................................... 18
xii
Table 2. Taft cogeneration energy consumption and generation2009 and 2010. ................................... 19
Table 3. Two HTGR plant alternative steam & electrical supply ratings. .................................................. 20
Table 4. Summary of alternative HTGR plant design characteristics. ........................................................ 22
Table 5. Summary of estimated HTGR cogeneration plant capital and operating costs in 2010$
(unless noted otherwise). ............................................................................................................ 28
Table 6. Key economic analysis parameters. .............................................................................................. 30
Table 7. Baseline unit costs for steam, electricity, and heat. ...................................................................... 30
xiii
xiv
ACRONYMS
COL
Combined Operating License
EAB
exclusion area boundary
ECC
Energy Education Center
EIA
Energy Information Administration
ELL
Entergy Louisiana, LLC
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
ESP
Early Site Permit
GTCC
gas turbine combined cycle
HTGR
high temperature gas-cooled reactor
INL
Idaho National Laboratory
LWR
light water reactor
NGCC
natural gas combined cycle
NGNP
Next Generation Nuclear Plant
NHSS
nuclear heat supply system
xv
xvi
Next Generation Nuclear Plant Project Evaluation of

Siting an HTGR Co-generation Plant on an Operating
Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Site
1.
INTRODUCTION/SITE/SCOPE
1.1
Introduction
This paper summarizes a scoping evaluation conducted by the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Next
Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project of the technical and economic feasibility of siting a high
temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) plant on an existing nuclear plant site that is located in an area
where there is significant industrial activity. This is a co-generation application in which the HTGR Plant
would be supplying steam and electricity to one or more of the nearby industrial plants.
The NGNP Project was initiated at INL by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) as part of the
Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems technology roadmap and pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of
2005.1 The principal objective of the NGNP Project is to support commercialization of HTGR
technology. The HTGR is helium cooled with a graphite core that can operate at reactor outlet
temperatures much higher than conventional light water reactor (LWR) technology. Accordingly, it can
be applied in many industrial applications as a substitute for burning of fossil fuels, such as natural gas, in
addition to producing electricitythe principal application of LWRs. Applications of the HTGR
technology that have been evaluated by the NGNP Project for supplying process energy include supplying
electricity, steam, and high-temperature gas to a wide range of industrial processes, and production of
hydrogen and oxygen for use in petrochemical, refining, coal-to-liquid fuels and feedstocks, chemical,
and fertilizer plants. These evaluations investigated both the technical and economic viability and the
market potential for these applications.2,3
As a non-CO2-emitting substitute for the burning of fossil fuels in industrial applications, the HTGR
can offset significant quantities of CO2 emissions attendant with the burning of these fuels. These
emissions derive from both the direct combustion of these fuels in the industrial processes (e.g., providing
steam, electricity for internal use, supplying high temperature gas) as well as the emissions associated
with electrical power taken from the grid. The use of the HTGR technology as a substitute for burning of
natural gas in many of these applications, and for conversion of coal to synthetic fuels and chemical
process feedstock, also improves the security of the energy supply in the United States, reduces reliance
on offshore imports, reduces the impact of the volatility in energy prices that have been experienced over
the last few decades on the economics of industrial processes (e.g., wide swings in the prices of oil,
natural gas, and coal), and preserves our limited nonrenewable energy resources (e.g., instead of burning
natural gas, it is used in more productive and irreplaceable feedstock applications for producing a broad
range of chemicals).
In support of commercializing the HTGR technology the NGNP Project has defined tasks to assess
the feasibility of siting the HTGR to support different industrial applications under different site
conditions, (e.g., brownfield closely co-located with petrochemical, refining or other industry with high
and varied energy usage, brown or greenfield on an existing nuclear site in close proximity to one or more
potential energy off-takers, brown-or greenfield in a remote location, greenfield for electricity generation
and distribution only.) In other work, the NGNP Project has evaluated siting the HTGR within or close by
an existing petrochemical facility. The NGNP Project has also performed preliminary analyses for siting a
plant in a remote area, supplying steam, electricity, and high temperature gas for recovery and upgrading
of unconventional crude oil.
1.2
Site to be Evaluated
The location selected for this evaluation is adjacent to Entergy Louisiana, LLCs (ELL) Waterford-3
nuclear facility located on the banks of the Mississippi river, in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. ELL owns
~3,000 acres on which the Waterford-3 nuclear facility is sited. Three other ELL fossil fired plants
(Waterford-1, 2, and 4) are located to the west of Waterford-3 on the ELL property. For the purposes of
this report, the overall ELL property will be referred to as the Waterford site. The existing nuclear facility
location will be referred to as the Waterford-3 site.
The Waterford site was originally slated for two pressurized water reactor units, but the second
nuclear plant was not built. Accordingly, there is significant clear and unused area for siting the HTGR.
The site is also surrounded by major industries, including refining, petrochemical, hydrogen generation,
ammonia, and other plants. Figures 1 and 2 are aerial views of the Northern part of the Waterford site, the
Waterford-1, 2, 3, and 4 plants, and the surrounding industrial plants situated east of the Waterford site.
This being a hypothetical siting evaluation to support NGNP Project objectives in developing and
commercializing the HTGR technology, ELL was not consulted to determine if there are future plans for
this site that would conflict with the feasibility of siting an HTGR there, since future plans for the site are
not relevant to this evaluation. They would be relevant to a follow-up site feasibility study by others; such
a study would require early discussions with ELL on their plans for the site.
Waterford
Site
Figure 1. The Waterford site north of Highway 3127.
Dow
Chemical
Koch
Nitrogen
Praxair
Air Liquide
OxyChem
Waterford
Site
Figure 2. Waterford site and major industrial plants east of Waterford-3.
1.3
Evaluation Scope
This evaluation covered the feasibility of locating an HTGR as a co-generation plant supplying steam
and electricity to nearby industrial facilities on the Waterford site.b,4 The feasibility to locate the HTGR
plant on the Waterford site was evaluated considering the size of the HTGR plant, the expected exclusion
area boundary (EAB) of the plant, the ability to construct the plant on the site with emphasis on the nature
and depth of required excavations and site preparation, the use of water extracted from the Mississippi for
turbine generator condenser and other auxiliary cooling needs, the availability of additional water sources
to meet other plant needs, and the ability to receive and transport large vessels and other major
components such as turbine generator shells and rotors to the HTGR plant site.
The location and energy needs of industrial plants (potential end users) close by the selected site were
identified and assessed for supply by an HTGR plant. This included understanding the amount of energy
required, the peak to average and minimum to average annual variations in demand, the forms of energy
required (e.g., steam, electricity and hot gas), the availability requirements, and the potential for selling
excess generated electricity to the local electrical grid. The majority of this information was obtained
from publically available DOE Energy Information Administration (EIA) data. This effort did include
meeting with a potential energy off-taker to elicit their interest in considering the HTGR as a long term
energy supply and the types and amounts of energy that would be required.
Once the energy needs of potential end users was understood, a conceptual HTGR plant design was
developed with the capability to meet these energy needs, including forms of energy, reliability, and
availability. Scoping analyses were also performed for this plant design to evaluate the economic viability
of this application.
The HTGR technology could also be applied in an electricity-only application similar to that of
current electricity generating plants on the Waterford site. In this regard, the high temperature operation
of the HTGR can achieve much higher net generation efficiencies (40 to 50%, depending on the power
conversion system deployed) than current LWR technologies (~30%). The modularity of the HTGR
nuclear heat supply system also provides flexibility in sizing the plant and in scheduling build-out of the
b.
Per EPAct Sec 642(b)(3) INL shall review and assess the functional, operational, and performance requirements for hightemperature, gas-cooled nuclear energy technologies and possible industrial applications for the technologies as identified
by end-users, owner/operators, and investors to support the Project.
plant to correspond with demand growth or retirement of older generation reactors. This evaluation,
however, covered the broader cogeneration application in accordance with the NGNP Project objective of
commercializing the HTGR technology for industrial applications.
In support of this evaluation, a separate site assessment was performed to determine hazards and
potential challenges to licensing the plant with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that site
owners and HTGR designers need to be aware of when developing the HTGR design for this site, and to
evaluate the site for suitability, considering certain site characteristics. The scope of the HTGR site hazard
assessment included
Completing an initial screening to identify potential challenges and restraints to be addressed in

design and licensing processes
Providing assurance that the HTGR technology can be deployed for a range of applications for a
variety of sites
Describing actions necessary to mitigate the impacts of hazards
Providing key insights that can inform the plant design process.
This assessment considered health and safety, environment, sociology, and other important siting
characteristics to determine the potential impact of identified hazards and potential challenges presented
by the location for licensing this technology with NRC. This assessment also identified interactive effects
between Waterford-3 and the HTGR that would need to be considered in the site suitability evaluation for
the HTGR plant.
2.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The evaluations summarized in this report did not identify any technical hazards or economic
conditions that would prevent locating an HTGR cogeneration plant on the Waterford site for supplying
steam and electricity to at least two closely located industrial plants and electricity for sale on the regional
electrical grid. Specifically:
Preliminary interest in receiving energy from a co-generation plant on the Waterford site has been
shown by The Dow Chemical Company petrochemical plant located within 1-1/2 miles of the
potential site for the HTGR plant.
The Waterford site has several locations with sufficient area and acceptable geological and
hydrological characteristics to permit siting of the HTGR plant. These locations also permit siting the
HTGR plant at sufficient distances from the Mississippi river to satisfy US Army Corps of Engineer
restrictions on construction within 1,500 ft of the river levee centerline and from the railway on the
south side of the Waterford site to accommodate potential hazards from postulated exploding railcars
without requiring special design features.
The HTGR plant can be located such that its expected EAB at 400 meters from the reactor centerlines
does not encompass the Waterford-3 nuclear power plant nor extend outside the boundaries of the
Waterford site. Because it is expected that all regulatory requirements for protecting the health and
safety of the public and the environment, including the Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA)
Protective Action Guidelines, will be met at the EAB it is anticipated that the coverage area of current
Waterford-3 emergency planning would not need to be increased. However, the proximity of the
HTGR plant would need to be considered in updates to the Waterford-3 emergency plan.
The ability to handle the large components of the HTGR plant and the ability to construct the HTGR
plant on the Waterford site have been confirmed. Should a project to site an HTGR plant on the
Waterford site evolve, discussions with the US Army Corps of Engineers would be necessary to
confirm the acceptability of the excavation and dewatering that would be necessary to bury the
nuclear heat supply systems 160 ft underground. Based on information gathered and prior excavation
experience on the Waterford site, a favorable disposition by the Corps for these excavations and
dewatering would be expected.
It has been assumed that major cooling water requirements for the plant, (e.g., power conversion
system condenser cooling) could be satisfied by extraction from the Mississippi river in a once
through configuration similar to that in operation at Waterford-3. However, if a determination is made
that the HTGR plant is a new unit at an existing generating plant, recent EPA rulings may require the
use of a closed cooling water system. If this is the case an evaluation would be made as part of the
plant design process to determine the most efficient and economic closed cooling water system for the
HTGR plant (e.g., natural draft cooling tower, forced draft cooling). In any event, there is adequate
water from the Mississippi river to support a once through or closed cycle condenser cooling water
configuration.
It has also been assumed that other water usage requirements can be met using the St. Charles Parish
water supply. Waterford-3 uses ~12 million gallons annually from this source. No extractions from
groundwater or local aquifers were assumed. If a site feasibility study concluded that the St. Charles
Parish water supply was not sufficient to satisfy an HTGR plant, a study would be needed to
determine if ground water would be sufficient to supply the HTGR plant under all conditions and
would not lead to excessive ground subsidence.
A review of the DOE/EIA data for the industrial facilities located on the same side of the river and
within two miles of the Waterford site identified only two facilities with sufficient energy generation
capacity and consumption to be considered as potential off-takers of energy from an HTGR
cogeneration plant. These are The Dow Chemical Company petrochemical plant and the Taft
Cogeneration plant. A 3,600 MW(t) plant rating using 6-600 MW(t) HTGR modules was determined
to be sufficient to replicate the energy supplies at these facilities and to provide the best economics of
several alternatives evaluated. This HTGR plant would be capable of supplying all of the energy
needs of these facilities as well generating up to 730 MW(e) of additional electricity for sale on the
regional grid. This excess capacity and the provision of six modules also provides 100% availability
of steam and electricity to the industrial facilities during HTGR plant refueling and maintenance
outages.
A notional schedule was developed for the design, licensing, construction, and commissioning of the
HTGR plant showing the length of Projects entailing 4, 6, and 10 module configurations. The total
estimated time from the start of the project to initial operation of the first of the six 600 MW(t)
modules is estimated at 10 years, which includes 6 years of licensing and permitting activities and
4 years of construction. Licensing is assumed to be conducted under 10 CFR 52 with eventual issue
of a Combined Operating License (COL). It is also assumed that an Early Site Permit (ESP) will be
obtained. Site preparation is assumed to start upon receipt of the ESP 2 years prior to receipt of the
COL. All six modules would be online in an additional 2-1/2 years. This schedule and plant
configuration was the basis for the economic analyses of this plant.
In the assumed business model for the cogeneration plant, the HTGR plant is a standalone entity. In
developing the business model it was assumed that long term energy supply agreements could be
executed with the potential end users for supplying steam and electricity. The terms of these
agreements would include provisions for price adjustments based on inflation and favorable factors
for continuous extension of the energy supply contracts. It was also assumed that similar contracts
could be executed with the regional utility and potentially other facilities in the area for supplying
electricity.
Economic evaluations show that the mature (nth-of-a-kind) HTGR plant can provide steam and
electricity at prices that provide acceptable returns on equity to the equity holders and are competitive
with historical and projected prices of steam and electricity generated using natural gas fired plants.
Baseline and uncertainty analyses predict the following ranges of electricity and steam prices from
the HTGR plant:
Electricity 64 + 10 $/MW(e)-hr
- Steam
10 + 1.5 $/1000 lb
The baseline prices are comparable to a natural gas price of $6/MMBtu based on projected costs for
generation of electricity and steam using natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants.
-
The ranges of the prices reflect the large uncertainties in the cost and financial factors used in the
economic evaluations. As the HTGR plant design progresses, these uncertainties will be reduced,
developing more confidence in the results.
The separately documented site hazards analysis concludes that the Waterford site appears to be
viable for siting the HTGR plant. This assessment identified questions concerning technical and
environmental factors that require further evaluation prior to proceeding with formal site permitting and
HTGR deployment. The more significant of the questions that could affect the HTGR plant design and
construction mitigation actions are:
The proximity of a nearby railroad line to the site presents potential issues with respect to impacts
from hazardous materials and security. Physical security considerations may create some specific
needs for the design, and will require further evaluation, depending on the final location selected for
siting the reactors and the surveillance technology selected.
The site exhibits near surface groundwater conditions in soils that are prone to settlement when
dewatered. This can create a risk of localized surface subsidence during the dewatering operations
that would accompany construction and potentially operation of an HTGR facility.
Equilibrated groundwater hydrodynamic pressures on the basemat (at approximately 160-ft deep) of
the post-constructed HTGR facility must be considered in the HTGR facility design.
Current and future planned flood protection and mitigation features in the vicinity of the site, such as
levee systems, reservoirs, and diversion structures maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
would need to be revalidated as applicable to adequate flood protection for newly installed HTGR
modules at this site.
All of these would require further evaluation during the design process but are judged not to
disqualify this site for locating the HTGR plant.
Note that this summary listing does not include other challenges and potential hazards on or around
the Waterford site, such as the bulk storage of hazardous substances at neighboring industrial facilities.
Although these are important considerations for HTGR design and siting, they were not considered to be
significant HTGR challenges, since they have previously been successfully addressed at Waterford-3 and
can likely be similarly addressed for the HTGR facility.
An assessment was also performed to identify impacts that the construction and operation of the
HTGR facility may have on the existing Waterford-3 nuclear plant. The results of that assessment include
a number of items, including the following examples that need to be evaluated further, but are judged
based on this assessment to not disqualify this site for locating the HTGR plant.
Effects of postulated HTGR radiological releases on the existing safety systems, technical
specification requirements, and associated dose analyses
The potential need to integrate the security and emergency planning functions for Waterford-3 and
the HTGR facility
Hazards or impacts to be considered during the HTGR facilitys construction phase (site
access/egress, excavation, wind-generated, construction-related missiles, etc.)
This scoping evaluation provides a basis for a more detailed site feasibility study by any interested
entities. Such a study would more thoroughly address the considerations identified in this evaluation and
perform detailed economic evaluation using appropriate corporate algorithms and financial factors. If a
Project was undertaken to develop the cogeneration plant, the pursuit of an NRC ESP should be seriously
considered, since this process provides a relatively inexpensive method for resolving site-related issues
early in the licensing process.
3.
EVALUATION FOR SITING AN HTGR PLANT AT WATERFORD-3
3.1
Location and Specific Site Characteristics Affecting HTGR Plant

Siting
3.1.1
Property Description
The Waterford site is on the west bank of the Mississippi River between Killona and Taft, Louisiana
in the northwest portion of St. Charles Parish. This real estate consists of approximately 3,632 acres. The
property is bounded on the north side by the Mississippi River with 7,500 ft, more or less of river
frontage. State Road 18, also known as River Road, and the Missouri Pacific Railway cross the width of
the property. Waterford is located in an industrial area. There are three generating stations on the site that
are owned by ELL. In addition to Waterford-3, these facilities include the Waterford Units One and Two.
These units are fossil-fired drum-type boilers, each having their own turbine-generator sets. Waterford
Unit Three is a pressurized water reactor having its own turbine/generator set. It is located downstream of
the fossil units on State Highway 18. Included in each plants design are fuel storage tanks and support
structures, parts storage and warehousing, administration and personnel buildings, maintenance buildings
and support structures. An Energy Education Center (ECC) is located on State Highway 3127. The EEC
provides facilities for classroom and technical laboratory instruction. It is also the home to a full-size
control room simulator identical to that of the Waterford-3 control room and is used for operator and
technical training. Also located in the EEC is the near-site Emergency Operations Center.
The site was originally sized to include two nuclear units along with the two fossil plants, but only
one nuclear plant was built. The tract of land owned by ELL is adjacent to large industrial facilities that
are sandwiched between River Road (State Road 18) and State Highway 3127. A parcel of the property of
approximately 2,352 acres is located south of State Highway 3127. It is undeveloped and considered to be
freshwater forested wetlands.
Figures 1 and 2 (above) provide aerial views of the Waterford site and nearby industrial facilities. c
Figure 3 is a copy of a recent survey of the Waterford site. In reference to Figure 3, an objective of siting
the HTGR plant is to be north of the Texas & Pacific railroad tracks and on the eastern side of
Waterford-3 to facilitate circulation of cooling water to and from the river and transport of steam to the
industrial plants. This places the preferred site in Section 25 of the survey map (see Figure 3). Figure 4 is
an aerial view highlighting this section with an outline of the area that was originally considered as a
location for the HTGR plant. Also shown is an outline of the preferred area considering restrictions on
siting. It was learned, for example, that the site must be at least 1,500 ft from the center of the levee to be
in compliance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers restrictions on construction near the Mississippi river.
The area outlined for the preferred site is also judged to be sufficient to accommodate the size of the
HTGR plant needed to meet the energy needs of local industries. As shown on Figure 4, the potential site
has been located in the south-western edge of Section 25. This is outside the zone of restriction on
construction within 1,500 ft of the center of the levee but does overlap with natural gas pipelines that
traverse that part of the site. It may be possible to position the plant within this area without interfering
with these gas lines. If necessary, the western most pipeline could be rerouted to accommodate the HTGR
plant.
The photographs of the Waterford site and surrounding area are for reference only and may not show the latest
configurations of Waterford-3 or other facilities.
Figure 3. Composite survey of Waterford 1, 2, and 3 sites.
Original Area
Considered for
Siting the plant
Helipad
Selected area for
Siting the Plant
Natural
Gas
Pipelines
Figure 4. Preferred site for the HTGR plant.

Figure 5 shows alternative site locations that have been identified as feasible for the HTGR plant and
could be investigated further if necessary in the future. The preferred site and the alternative sites are
close enough together that there is little difference in site characteristics such as soil composition and
geology, seismology, access to the regional grid, and access to the industrial facilities and the Mississippi
river. If the alternative sites were considered, the preferences to minimize the logistics and distances for
steam transport to the industrial facilities east of the plant would be Site X, then Y, and then Z.
The following section summarizes considerations on purchase or lease of property on the Waterford
site for siting a cogeneration plant provided by ELL. These were not considered in this scoping evaluation
because this is a hypothetical siting evaluation to support NGNP Project objectives in developing and
commercializing the HTGR technology. Accordingly, future plans for the site are not relevant to this
evaluation. They would be relevant to a follow-up site feasibility study by others and such a study would
require early discussions with ELL on their plans for the site.
3.1.2
Purchase/Lease Options (Provided by ELLs Real Estate Department)
Options and requirements for a property purchase or lease are expected to be based upon the plants
use as either a regulated asset (benefit for regulated utility ratepayers) or a merchant plant sited solely for
the benefit of industrial off-takers. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rules will apply, depending
upon the plants use as either a regulated or merchant facility.
10
Alternative
Site Z
Preferred
Site
Alternative
Site Y
Alternative
Site X
Figure 5. Relationship of preferred and alternative sites for the HTGR plant.
Two options may be available to sell a portion of the Waterford property or lease a portion for
industrial use. An agreement such as a lease or license could be executed between ELL companies
(regulated and unregulated) or an owner consortium or joint venture. Any agreements would be subject to
all appropriate laws, regulatory requirements, and governmental approvals. Compensation/rent would be
established in accordance with affiliate rules pricing if a transaction occurs between two ELL affiliates. A
real estate transaction would require that compensation be based on current market value for the property,
or higher, depending on the type of transaction.
The following principal recommendations on the location of the HTGR plant were developed based
on information gathered during the evaluation:
The site must be located at least 1,500 ft south of the center of the levee on the Mississippi river as
required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The land North of the helipad (see Figure 4) and east of the Generation Support Building is declared
as culturally sensitive land and any type of construction (including a parking lot) is prohibited.
Two Chevron natural gas lines traverse the ELL controlled land. These lines are located near the
transmission towers on the east side of Waterford-3 (see Figure 3). The HTGR plant must consider
postulated explosion analysis and blast effects on plant structures and components. (Note that a full
11
hazards analysis would be required considering all potential external hazards within 5 miles of the
final HTGR site. A preliminary hazards analysis has been performed for the preferred HTGR site
shown in Figure 3.5 The key conclusions of this analysis are summarized in Section 6 of this report.
There are two Texaco natural gas pipelines that traverse the preferred site location for the HTGR
plant (see Figure 4). These may need to be rerouted if they interfere with the HTGR site. They must
also be included in the HTGR hazards analysis (see Section 6).
The Waterford-3 site hazards analysis includes the postulated explosion of a tanker railcar on the
Texas & Pacific railway tracks south of the plant. This analysis shows no significant effect of the
postulated explosion on structures more than 1,100 ft from the tracks. The preferred site and
alternative sites X and Y may position the HTGR plant closer than 1,100 ft from the tracks. If this is
the case the final design of the plant will need to include features to accommodate the predicted blast
effects and effects on operating personnel from such an accident.
It may be feasible and beneficial to extend the Waterford-3 security owner controlled area to include
the HTGR plant to consolidate the security forces of the two plants. A separate study will assess the
technical, licensing, and any other relevant factors affecting the feasibility of this approach.
Rights-of-way will need to be obtained through industrial plants that may be in the route for transfer
of steam and electricity from the HTGR plant to other industrial plants (see discussion of potential
energy off-takers below).
3.2
Excavation
As shown in Figure 6 the HTGR nuclear heat supply system (NHSS), which is comprised of the
reactor and the heat transport system of each HTGR module, are assumed to be buried underground. The
excavation depth for each NHSS module to be included in the plant will be in the range of 160 ft,
including the basemat. The excavation for each module is cylindrical with a nominal outside diameter of
~110 ft.
Note that the HTGR plant does not have to be located completely underground. If necessary it could
be located with lesser embedment. There are security and seismic advantages to providing as full an
embedment as achievable.
The relevant site geology is summarized in the site Hazards Analysis. No major issues with
excavation to the 160-ft depth required to accommodate each NHSS module have been identified. There
are several factors that will need to be addressed in detail as the design and siting of the plant are
finalized:
The depth of the excavation will be below the bottom of the Mississippi river in that area. Any special
precautions or actions that will be necessary to accommodate this depth will be reviewed with the
US Army Corps of Engineers as the design is finalized. None are known at this time.
The excavation will require caissons and significant dewatering capacity during excavation. It should
be noted that Waterford-3 is situated well below the water table and plant personnel indicate that
there were no major problems because of that condition during construction. The HTGR plant may
require dewatering during operation.
The potential interaction of the excavation for a module with the operating Waterford-3 plant and
other operating sister HTGR module(s) must be evaluated and assessed as part of the design and
licensing bases for Waterford-3 and the operating HTGR plants.
No excavation can be performed within 1,500 ft of the center of the levee on the Mississippi river.
The preferred site and other potential sites are south of this limit.
12
NHSS
44,500 mm
3,000mm
32,700 mm
Figure 6. Example of nuclear heat supply system embedment.
Based on recent excavation experience on the Waterford site, it has been assumed that it will be
possible to spread waste dirt from the excavations over existing land. A single module excavation will
remove about -acre ft of dirt. A more detailed evaluation will be required to locate viable sites for
spreading this amount of dirt. The area south of Route 3127 may be viable as a means of offsetting
erosion in the wetlands.
Inspections and tests will be required to ensure that the excavated dirt is not chemically or
radiologically contaminated (e.g., from any source from Waterford-3).
Settling ponds will likely be required for silt removal prior to discharging the water removed during
excavation to the drainage canal.
There is a restriction on any construction activity on the Waterford site if the Mississippi river water
level (at the Carrollton gauge) is +11 ft or higher.
13
3.3
Cooling Water Supply
For the maximum plant rating being considered for this site and fully rated turbine generators
~1,100 MW(t) or 3,740 MMBtu/hour of cooling will be required. The following factors affect this cooling
water supply:
The Waterford-3 condenser cooling water system is in a once through configuration using Mississippi
river water as the coolant. It has been assumed in this evaluation that this same configuration would
be acceptable for the HTGR plant. However, recent EPA rulings may require the use of a closed
cooling water system if a determination is made that the HTGR plant is a new unit at an existing
generating plant. If this is the case an evaluation would be made as part of the plant design process to
determine the most efficient and economic closed cooling water system for the HTGR plant, (e.g.,
natural draft cooling tower, forced draft cooling). In any event, there is adequate water from the
Mississippi river to support a once through or closed cycle condenser cooling water configuration.
For the once through configuration assumed in this evaluation the following apply:
-
There is a restriction on the temperature of the water returned to the river of 18F above the inlet
temperature. Accordingly, the maximum required cooling water flow for the HTGR condensers
would be in the range of 210 MMlb/hour. This is comparable to the flow through condensers in
Waterford-3.
New intake and discharge structures similar to those currently in place for Waterford-3 would
need to be constructed over the river levees (see Figure 7).
Figure 7. Waterford-3 cooling water intake and discharge structures.
14
Additional water supplies will be required for the HTGR plant, (e.g., domestic water supply, makeup
to the HTGR shutdown cooling system, turbine generator system, and any other cooling water systems).
Waterford-3 currently purchases water not obtained from the river from St. Charles Parish water supply.
This amounts to ~12 million gallons per annum. This has been assumed to be the approach that will be
taken for the HTGR plant. Although the water usage needs of the HTGR plant have not been established,
they are not expected to be higher than that required of the Waterford-3 plant. Since another plant similar
to Waterford-3 was to be included on the Waterford site it is anticipated that the St. Charles Parish water
supply will be capable of meeting the HTGR water needs.
It should be noted, however, if sufficient water cannot be obtained from the St. Charles Parish water
supply and extraction of water from the groundwater aquifers is needed, an additional study would be
required to determine if adequate water can be supplied during all postulated conditions without
impacting other users or causing ground subsidence.
3.4
Transportation and Handling of Large Components
The largest components in the HTGR plant will be the reactor pressure and heat transport system
vessels. These are shown in Figure 6. The heat transport system vessel is shown as enclosing an
intermediate heat exchanger (IHX). There is also a cross-over vessel that connects the reactor pressure
vessel with the heat transport vessel; however, this vessel is much smaller than the other two vessels and
is not judged to require special handling. The reactor pressure vessel is the largest and heaviest of the
vessels that will need to be handled during construction of the plant. Figure 8 shows the maximum
expected size of the reactor vessel for each NHSS. Figure 9 shows a typical heat transport system vessel
dimensions. This vessel will not be as heavy as the reactor pressure vessel sections shown. Note that the
weights are in metric tons (2,250 lb/metric ton).
Figure 8. Reactor pressure vesselthe largest vessel anticipated to be used in the HTGR. [General Atomics
911118,RPV and IHX Pressure Vessel Alternatives Study Report, April 2008]
15
Figure 9. A Typical heat transport system vessel. [AREVA, 12-9076324-001 RPV and IHX Ves Alt_INL.pdf]
As shown the reactor pressure vessel will be shipped in two pieces whereas the heat transport system
vessel will be shipped in one piece.
At the time of this writing, Waterford-3 is preparing for reactor vessel head and steam generator
replacement outages. The largest components to be handled in these outages are the steam generators with
overall weights >500 tons. The steam generators will be shipped by barge to a landing on the river in
front of the Waterford site. Large mobile cranes will lift the steam generators from the barge and transport
them to the containment access up a special ramp constructed up and over the river levee. A similar
arrangement would be used to transport the HTGR reactor pressure vessels and heat transport system
vessels to the site. These vessels would be fabricated elsewhere with access to waterways that connect
with the Mississippi river. The vessels would be shipped by barge to the landing at the Waterford-3 site
and carried to the HTGR site from the landing using a mobile crane and ramp up and over the levee.
The Waterford site is also accessible via major highways and railroads. These will be used to
transport other components such as helium circulators, the core internals, steam turbine generator shells,
turbine stationary blading and rotors, generator stator and rotors, feedwater heaters, and condenser tube
assemblies.
An onsite concrete plant will be constructed similar to that used for construction of Waterford-3 and
all materials for concrete production as well as other materials of construction will be shipped in by truck
and rail.
The successful construction of Waterford-3 provides confidence that there is sufficient access, local
infrastructure, and support to construct the HTGR Plant.
16
4.
POTENTIAL ENERGY OFF-TAKERS

4.1
General
Figure 10 (reproduced from the Waterford-3 Final Safety Analysis Report) shows the major industrial
facilities and oil and gas fields within 5 miles of the Waterford-3 plant. It was assumed in assessing the
potential for supplying energy to each of these facilities that (1) the facility needed to be on the same side
of the Mississippi river as the Waterford site and (2) the facility consumes steam and/or electricity as part
of the operation of the facility. As shown in Figure 3, there are five industrial facilities on the south side
of the Mississippi river and east of the Waterford site that have the potential to fit both criteria. However,
review of actual energy consumption as summarized in reports to DOE/EIA on Forms 923 and 875 show
that only the Union Carbide and the Occidental Chemical Taft Cogeneration plants have sufficient energy
capacities and consumption to be considered viable off-takers of energy from the HTGR plant.
Figure 10. Major industrial facilities located within 5 miles of Waterford-3 nuclear power plant.
4.2
Union Carbide
Union Carbide, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company, is a petrochemical
facility processing a wide range of chemical products. Discussions with Dow personnel determined that
the current general plant energy requirements are supplied by two Westinghouse 501D5A gas turbine
combined cycle (GTCC) units including a noncondensing steam turbine generator, two package boilers,
and a condensing steam turbine generator. These units supply electricity and steam that is distributed to
600, 200, and 75 lb headers in the chemical processing plant. Based on EIA data extracted from facility,
EIA-Form-923 reports the energy supplied by the two GTCC units and the condensing steam turbine
generator in 2009 and 2010 included steam and electricity as shown in Table 1.
17
Table 1. Dow Union Carbide steam and electricity production2009 and 2010.
Type
CoGen
Peak
Average
Operatin
Net
Energy
Energyto Percent
Percent Percent
Energy
Peakto Peakto
g
Net
Total
Electricity
Demand,
Principal
Generate Electricity
Electricity Electricity Demand,
Average Minimum Electricit
Location
Capacity
Energy,
Generation
Monthly
Fuel
Electricity Generation
SoldOff fromOff Monthly
Energy
Energy
y
Factor
MMBtu
MWhe
MWt
MMBtu
%
Site,%
Site,%
MWt
Demand Demand Generato
(annual)
Equivale
rRatings
Equivalent
nt
LA
NG
22,562,622 15,175,000
67% 1,359,915
17.1%
5.0%
794.57
864.04
1.09
1.20 334
51%
23,828,457 19,625,826
82% 1,758,778
NotAvailable
797.43
943.95
1.18
1.77 otAvailable
Year
2009
2010
Data supplied to INL by Dow personnel indicate that average steam consumption of the plant is in the
range of 1.5 million lb/hour and peak demand is in the range of 1.8 million lb/hour; equivalent to
~680 MW(t). Review of Table 1 shows that the quantity of steam supplied by the GTCCs is in the range
of 25 to 40% of the average steam produced. The remainder is supplied by the two package boilers; each
with a rating of 250,000 lb/hour. As shown in Table 1, the majority of the electricity generated by the two
GTCC plants and the condensing steam turbine is consumed on site; less than 20% was sold offsite in
2009, and 5% was obtained from the grid (2010 data will not be available until later in 2011).
For the purposes of sizing the HTGR plant, the following characteristics of the Union Carbide energy
needs and supply were applied:
Electricity (Based on EIA data):
Average demand
220 MW(e)
Peak demand
260 MW(e)
Installed Capacity 335 MW(e).
Steam to the processes (Based on data supplied to INL by Dow personnel):
Average Flowrate 1.50 million lb/hour
Peak Flowrate
1.80 million lb/hour.
INL discussions with Dow personnel indicate that the energy used in the Union Carbide facility may
potentially increase in the future as the plant configuration evolves. This could include a demand for
additional energy in the form of hot gas in addition to electricity and steam. The modular characteristics
of the HTGR plant facilitate adding plant capacity to respond to changing energy needs such as may be
experienced at SCO.
4.3
Taft Cogeneration Plant
The data shown in Table 2 is for the Taft Cogeneration plant operated by the Occidental Chemical
Corporation. This plant supplies steam and electricity to the co-located petro-chemical plant and
electricity to the regional utility. Based on the DOE/EIA data in Table 2 for 2009, the petro-chemical
plant used about 30% of the electricity generated. The total electricity generated by the Taft plant in 2010
was ~5.4 million MW(e)-hr. The plant, therefore, consumed ~1.6 million MW(e)-hr or ~180 MW(e) on
average over the year. The peak to average demand was around 120% in 2009 and 110% in 2010. Using
the larger value, the peak demand would be ~220 MW(e). The steam consumption averages
~500,000 lb/hour and is fed to a 170 lb steam header for use in the plant processes. This supply has a
rating of ~170 MW(t). For analysis purposes, it was assumed that the petro-chemical plant peak to
average steam demand is similar to that for the Union Carbide plant, resulting in an assumed
700,000 lb/hour peak demand; 230 MW(t).
18
Table 2. Taft cogeneration energy consumption and generation2009 and 2010.
Type
CoGen
Net
Energyto Percent
Total
Electricity
Principal
Generate Electricity
Location
Energy,
Generation
Fuel
Electricity Generation
MMBtu
MWhe
MMBtu
%
(annual)
LA
NG
34,911,384 32,702,872
40,275,592 39,230,929
94%
97%
4,462,663
5,357,852
Peak
Average
Energy
Energy
Peakto
Peakto Operating
Net
Demand,
Demand,
Average Minimum Electricity
Capacity
Monthly
Monthly
Energy
Energy
Generator
Factor
MWt
Ratings
MWt
Demand
Demand
Equivale
Equivalent
nt
68.5%
0.0%
1159.23 1413.64
1.22
3.26 894
59%
NotAvailable
1369.16 1540.82
1.13
1.30
NotAvailable
Percent
Electricity
SoldOff
Site,%
Percent
Electricity
fromOff
Site,%
Year
2009
2010
For the purposes of sizing the HTGR plant the following characteristics of the Taft plant were
applied:
Electricity:
Peak demand
Installed Capacity 895 MW(e).
220 MW(e)
Steam to the processes:
Average Flowrate 500,000 lb/hour
Peak Flowrate
700,000 lb/hour.
4.4
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The data of Tables 1 and 2 show that Union Carbide and the Taft Cogeneration Plants consumed
~64 million MMBtu of energy in 2010. The majority of this energy came from the burning of natural gas.
At 117 lb CO2/MMBtu of natural gas combustion this resulted in ~3.3 million metric tons of CO2
emissions in 2010. As a non-emitting source of energy, the application of the HTGR technology as the
energy source would eliminate these emissions.
4.5
HTGR Plant Rating Alternatives
For the purposes of evaluation, two alternatives were developed in sizing the HTGR plant for the
Waterford site; one alternative supplies only the specific energy needs of the Union Carbide and
Occidental Chemical Corporation plants, the other replicates an estimated capacity of the energy supplies
of both sites. In the former case (designated as Alt 1) the plant is sized to supply the total of the peak
demands for the two plants. An extra HTGR module is also included in the plant design to ensure 100%
availability during HTGR plant refueling and maintenance outages. This provides some extra electrical
capacity available for sale to the regional grid when all modules are in operation.
The latter case (designated as Alt 2) has electrical and steam capacity equivalent to an estimated total
capacity of the energy supplies of both plants. The capacity of the electrical supplies is available from
EIA data as shown above. The capacities for steam production are not available from publically available
data. Accordingly, the estimate of steam capacity assumes that it is 15% higher than the peak demand (a
total of 2.9 million lb/hour derived from the 2.5 million lb/hour peak demand cited previously). Because
the electrical capacity of this plant is much higher than the peak demand for both facilities, a significant
amount of electricity would be available for sale to the grid. In this alternative, the industrial plant energy
needs can be met 100% of the time by reducing the amount of capacity dedicated to supplying electricity
to the regional grid during HTGR module refueling and maintenance outages. The specific characteristics
of these two plant alternatives are summarized in Table 3.
19
Table 3. Two HTGR plant alternative steam & electrical supply ratings.
Alt 1: 100% of Current Energy
Item
Consumption
Steam supply, lb/hour
2,500,000
MW(t)
910
Electrical rating, MW(e)
480 to processes
260 to grid
Alt 2: 100% of Installed

Capacity
2,900,000
1,060
480 to processes
750 to grid
Section 5 discusses the plant designs, configurations, and siting of the HTGR plant for these two
alternatives.
20
5.
NOTIONAL HTGR PLANT DESIGN

5.1
HTGR Rating
Figure 11 shows the NHSS and power conversion conceptual relationship that was used to size the
HTGR cogeneration plant, develop the layouts on the Waterford site, and perform the economic
evaluations. This concept applies to both alternative plant ratings. The implementations of the alternatives
differ in the ratings of the NHSS modules, number of NHSS modules, and number of steam turbine
generators. Because the HTGR operates at high temperatures, the steam conditions from the NHSS are
similar to the superheated steam from a conventional gas or coal fired subcritical boiler; 2,400 psia,
1000F. The steam turbine generators operate, therefore, at 3,600 rpm in a conventional subcritical
Rankine multi-extraction reheat cycle. This distinguishes the HTGR plant from the LWR power
conversion cycle, which operates at lower pressure saturated or near saturated steam conditions and a
larger 1,800 rpm turbine generator. The net efficiency of the HTGR cycle is therefore higher (in the range
of 40%) than the LWR cycle (in the range of 33%).
Figure 11. Waterford HTGR cogeneration plant.

The cycle shown in Figure 11 also shows steam supplied to the industrial process in a single header at
a nominal pressure >600 lb. This header would then be used to supply the industrial processes at required
pressures using let-down valves or other mechanisms such as back-pressure turbines, depending on the
process. The steam supplied to the main header is generated in a reboiler supplied with extraction steam
from the high pressure end of the turbine cycle. This provides complete separation of the steam supplied
to the industrial plants from that supplied by the HTGR steam generator, and ensures that the process
steam will not contain any radionuclides from the nuclear process. It also reduces the chemistry
21
requirements on condensate returned to the HTGR plant. Sending the steam to the industrial plants in a
single high pressure header reduces the complexity of piping and valving that would be required to
transfer steam at multiple pressures.
Scoping analyses were performed to establish the plant ratings and number of principal components
required to satisfy the energy requirements of the two alternatives summarized in Table 3. The results of
those analyses are summarized in Table 4,d which provides the number of NHSS modules for module
ratings of 350 and 600 MW(t). These are NHSS module designs for which design information is currently
available.
Table 4. Summary of alternative HTGR plant design characteristics.
Item
Alt 1
Plant Total Rating, MW(t)
2,400
Electrical Rating, MW(e)
750
Steam Supply, MW(t)
910
Number of NHSS Modules
4600 MW(t)
6350 MW(t)
Number of Steam Turbine
2375 MW(e) each
Generators
Condenser Load, MW(t)
5.2
660
Alt 2
3,600
1,230
1,060
6600 MW(t)
10350 MW(t)
3410 MW(e) each, 600 MW(t)
modules
4310 MW(e) each, 350 MW(t)
modules
1,330
Plant Layout and Configuration
Figure 12 shows a preconceptual layout of a 4-NHSS module HTGR plant with two steam turbine
generators. This layout is based on component and area sizes used by General Atomics in preparing the
steam cycle modular helium reactor conceptual design report for DOE.6 The following describes the
major blocks shown in Figure 12:
The reactor modules (designated as RB-1, in the following figures) include the buried silo in
which the reactor and heat transport system are contained, the reactor building, and Reactor cavity
cooling system vent stack.
The Reactor Support Area includes the Operations Control Center, Reactor Service Building, nuclear
instrumentation water supply, spent fuel cooling water supply, shutdown cooling water system and
the Reactor Auxiliary Building.
A turbine generator module (designated as TG-1, in the following figures) includes the Turbine
Generator Building, the steam turbine and generator, and electrical switchgear.
The Turbine Support Area includes a water treatment system, ECA Warehouse, Tubine Generator
Maintenance Building, auxiliary boiler, Standby Power Building, filtered water tank, demineralized
water tank, water treatment clarifier, condensate storage, and fuel oil storage.
Parking and administration include the plant parking area and the Administration Building which
contains Engineering.
d.
These analyses were performed in Excel file, Waterford Cogen Plant Scoping Heat Balances.
22
Reactor Support
Area
Access
Control
Parking &
Administration
100
200
Scale (feet)
300
TG
Support
Area
Steam Lines
Electrical Lines
TG-2
TG-1
Steam &
Electricity
Distribution
Figure 12. Preconceptual layout of a 4-NHSS module HTGR plant (Visio file:
Waterford-Eval - Plant Layouts, Variations in the Number of Modules 8-17-11).
The potential variations in the rating of the modules and the plant that could be applied for the
co-generation application as described in the preceding section require different layouts of the plant.
Three different layouts have been developed and placed on the preferred site location. These include a
four-module, a six-module and a 10-module plant layout. The four-module layout accommodates the four
600 MW(t) plant and the four-module layout accommodates the six 350 MW(t) plant for the Alternative 1
plant design. As noted above, these would supply the steam and electricity needs of the potential end
users with an additional HTGR module(s) that provides about 250 MW(e) available to sell on the regional
grid.
The alternative two-plant design includes a six 600 MW(t) module (3,600 MW(t)) plant or a 10
350 MW(t) module (3,500 MW(t)) plant. These plant designs would essentially duplicate all of the energy
supply resources for steam and electricity generation currently in operation at the two potential end-user
sites. As shown above, this capacity would permit significant sales of electricity off site and to the
regional grid.
Figures 13, 14, and 15 show the four-module, six-module, and 10-module plants located on the
preferred site. The yellow line shown on these figures is parallel with and 1,100 ft north of the Texas &
Pacific rail lines.
Referring to Figures 13 and 14, the control rooms have been positioned to be north of the 1,100 ft line
to ensure that the postulated railcar explosion hazard does not require special design features to be
accommodated in the design and licensing basis of the plant. The 400 meter EAB of all the reactor NHSS
also do not enclose Waterford-3 nor extend beyond the Waterford site boundaries. This is illustrated by
the dotted black lines on the figures that show the 400 meter boundaries for the end modules that define
the east and west extents of the plant EAB.
23
Figure 13. The four-module layout on the preferred location. [Visio file: Waterford-Eval - Plant Layout]
Figure 14. The six-module plant layout on the preferred location. [Visio file: Waterford-Eval - Plant Layout]
24
Figure 15. The 10-module layout on the preferred location. [Visio file: Waterford-Eval - Plant Layout]
Figure 15, shows the 10-module layout selected for this plant size. Two different layouts were
considered. One added four more NHSS modules to the east of the six-module layout shown in Figure 14.
This was not an acceptable arrangement because the 400 meter EAB for all four of the added NHSS
modules cross over the site property line into the east industrial facility. It is not possible to move the full
site further west because of interference with high voltage transmission lines that run from Waterford-3
through this area to the high voltage switchyard. It is not judged practical to move those lines to permit
siting the HTGR plant in that location. Accordingly, the offset parallel arrangement of the NHSS modules
shown in Figure 15 was selected as the most practical. The position of the control room is the same as in
the other configurations thereby avoiding special design features to accommodate the postulated railcar
explosion hazard.
5.3
HTGR Cogeneration Plant Schedule
The conceptual schedule for implementing the Waterford HTGR cogeneration plant assumes a mature
HTGR design and deployment plan as shown in Figure 16. This schedule assumes that the Cogeneration
plant will be implemented using Nth-of-a-kind modules in an optimized deployment. This deployment
includes a 6-year period for construction of the first module, which includes 2 years of initial site
preparation and major material and component procurements, 4-years for construction of the second
module, and 3-year construction periods for all remaining modules. The construction periods are
overlapped so that each module starts operation 6 months after the prior module. The length of time
required for deployment of all modules depends on the number of modules in the plant.
25
HTGR COGEN PLANT DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, COMMISSIONING AND OPERATION

1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Years
Design & Engineering Services During Construction

Prepare ESP
Submit ESPA
NRC Review of ESPA
Issue ESP
Prepare COLA
Submit COLA
NRC Review of COLA
State and EPA Permitting
Issue COL
Obtain
Permits
NRC ITAACs
Long Lead and Commodity Procurement

Site Work
1st Module Operational
Construction 1st Module
Commissioning (TYP)
2nd Module Operational
Construction 2nd Module

Construction 3rd Module
Construction 4th Module
3rd Module Operational

4th Module Operational
Figure 16. HTGR cogeneration plant deployment schedule.

As shown in Figure 16, there is a 5-year period before the beginning of the first module construction.
This period is required for licensing and permitting activities, assuming that a Design Certification and a
Reference COL exist for the HTGR plant. It is assumed that the HTGR plant will be licensed by the NRC
under 10 CFR 52 with issue of a COL. It is also assumed that an Early Site Permit (ESP) will be obtained.
Site preparation work is assumed to start upon receipt of the ESP about 2 years prior to receipt of the
COL whereupon full construction of the first module can start. During construction and commissioning of
the modules, the NRC will close out open items identified as inspection, testing, and acceptance criteria
prior to authorizing initial fuel loading for each module. This process will continue through construction
of the final module. As shown, a four-module plant could be in full operation 11 years after the start of
the project, with a total construction period of 7 years, including early site preparation The six-module
plant adds 1 year to the construction period and total project period. The 10-module plant adds 3 years.
These deployment schedules were assumed in the economic analyses of the three alternative
configurations.
26
5.4
Assumed Business Model
Figure 17 depicts the business model on which the economics are based. The HTGR plant is assumed
to be a standalone entity. It is assumed that the owner(s) of the HTGR plant would enter into long term
energy supply agreements with the industrial facilities. Similar contracts would be entered into with the
regional utilities and others for supply of excess electricity. To achieve the required internal rate of return
on equity, these agreements need to have provisions to support the full use of HTGR plant energy at a
high capacity factor over the lifetime of the plant. Typically, energy supply contracts will only extend for
several years. They will contain clauses for price adjustments over this period, (e.g., to account for
inflationary factors) and provisions for continuation. It is important that such contracts between the
cogeneration plant and the energy off-takers provide adequate incentives for continuing these contracts
over the life of the plant. This is necessary because nuclear plants have high capital costs but very low
operating costs. During the period of capital recovery, capital recovery makes up ~70% of the operating
costs. This contrasts with natural gas plants where fuel costs can account for up to 70% of the operating
costs over this period. Accordingly, achieving the required internal rate of return on equity relies on long
term operation at near full capacity factors.
Figure 17. Business model.
5.5
Costs
The costs for the HTGR Plant design, licensing, construction, commissioning, and operation are
based on correlations for a mature (nth-of-a-kind) plant that account for the total rating of the plant, the
reactor outlet temperature of the NHSS modules, the rating of the NHSS modules, the number of steam
turbine generators, decommissioning costs, refueling outage costs, and scheduled and unscheduled outage
costs.7 The correlations were developed from specific plant cost estimates for HTGRs developed in the
1980s and 1990s by General Atomics for DOE, during the development of preconceptual designs by the
NGNP Project in 2007, as part of updates of costs as the designs and design requirements for the NHSS
evolved from discussions with potential end users, and from bottoms up analysis of costs of major
components such as large vessels. The costs for these components in 2010$ are summarized in Table 5.
The economic evaluations apply inflation factors over the length of the project. All NHSS costs are based
on a reactor outlet temperature of 750C.
27
Table 5. Summary of estimated HTGR cogeneration plant capital and operating costs in 2010$ (unless noted
otherwise).
4-Modules
6-Modules
10 Modules
600 MW(t) 600 MW(t) 350 MW(t) 350 MW(t)
Item
NHSS
NHSS
NHSS
NHSS
Design, licensing and permitting costs,
1,310
1,770
1,265
1,860
construction and engineering services, owners
cost, $MM*
NHSS capital cost, $MM*
1,750
2,445
1,700
2,600
Steam turbine generator costs, $MM*
335
440
300
430
Contingency, $MM*
675
930
655
975
Inflation 2009$ to 2010$
230
315
215
325
Total Plant Capital Cost, $MM (2011$)
4,300
5,900
4,135
6,190
Replacement core costs, $MM
53
53
30
30
Annual refueling costs, $MM
140
210
125
205
Operating and maintenance costs (exclusive of
105
140
130
205
replacement cores), $MM/annum
Decommissioning annual payment, $MM
11
16
9
15
*2009$
In reviewing Table 5, note the following:
The capital costs are in 2009$. The inflation factor accounts for inflation from 2009 to 2010 based on
industry Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index factors (2009521.9, 2010550.8).
A refueling period of 18 months has been assumed so there will be more than one refueling each year
for all of these configurations. The annual refueling costs are an average including the cost of
replacement cores and the costs for performing the refuelings.
The plant configurations using 350 MW(t) module ratings have higher per unit costs than those using
600 MW(t) module ratings. Figure 18 compares the costs per kW(t) of the NHSS modules as a
function of the plant rating for module ratings of 200, 350, and 600 MW(t).
28
4,000
750 C Reactor Outlet Temperature

3,500
Capital Cost, $/KWt
3,000
Module Ratings
2,500
200 MWt
350 MWt
2,000
600 MWt
1,500
1,000
500
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Plant Rating, MWt
Figure 18. Per unit capital costs versus module and plant ratings.
5.6
Pricing of Energy
The NGNP Project developed an economics modeling code to support evaluating the economic
viability of HTGR integration with industrial processes.8 The model is based on discounted cash flow
analysis, which includes all capital and operating costs for the HTGR plant and, where applicable, the
industrial plant. The model is configured to permit analysis of only the HTGR plant, providing energy in
specified forms (e.g., steam, electricity, heat) or an integrated plant including the HTGR as the principal
energy supply and the industrial processes producing a specific product(s), (e.g., ammonia, synthetic
transportation fuels, hydrogen, bitumen, syncrude). The internal rate of return on owner equity and net
present value are the principal parameters of interest calculated by the model.
The model includes high level designs of the plant configuration being analyzed, (e.g. an HTGR plant
only or a fully integrated industrial plant) that is used to develop capital and operating costs. In addition to
capital and operating costs, model inputs include project schedule, construction schedule and cost profile,
financial parameters and project life. The plant capacity factors take into account the staggered
commissioning of each module and the periods when the NHSS modules are off-line for refueling and
scheduled outages. An additional factor is applied to the capacity factor to account for unscheduled
outages.
The model performs the calculation of internal rate of return on owner equity based on discounted
cash flow over the life of the project using one of two optional approaches. In one alternative, the prices
of the products are adjusted to achieve a required return. In the other the return is calculated for given
product prices. For the economic analysis of the Waterford HTGR Cogeneration Plant the former
approach is used, (i.e., the prices of steam, electricity and heat supplied to the industrial processes and to
the grid are adjusted to achieve a required return). The results of this analysis are summarized below.
The capital and operating costs for the Cogeneration plant were summarized in the preceding section.
Other key parameters of the analysis are summarized in Table 6.
29
Table 6. Key economic analysis parameters.

Item
Project Start Date
Total construction time
Project Lifetime
Required Internal Rate of Return on Owner Equity
Debt to Equity Ratio
Interest During Construction
Debt Financing Interest
Debt Term
Consolidated Tax Rate
Depreciation
Inflation Factor
Escalation Factor
Value
2015
6 to 9 years
60 years
10%
80%
8%
8%
20 years
38.9%
MACRS 15 years
3%
None
The baseline per unit costs for steam, electricity, and heat are calculated in Table 7 for the several
configurations considered for the cogeneration plant.
Table 7. Baseline unit costs for steam, electricity, and heat.e
4-Modules
6-Modules
600 MW(t)
600 MW(t)
350 MW(t)
Item
NHSS
NHSS
NHSS
Electricity, $/MWhe
71
64
82
Steam, $/1000 lb
11
10
13
Heat, $/MMBtu
9
8
10
10 Modules
350 MW(t)
NHSS
77
12
10
This table shows the effect of the higher $/kW(t) cost for the 350 MW(t) module rating versus that of
the 600 MW(t) rating and the benefit of the larger 3,600 MW(t) plant. It should also be noted that the
350 MW(t) module rated plants had less total plant rating than the 600 MW(t) module plants so there was
less excess electrical power available for sale to the grid. The results would not have changed much if
additional 350 MW(t) modules were added. The results clearly illustrate the economies of scale. For this
reason the 3,600 MW(t) (6600 MW(t) modules) is judged to be the best alternative for this application
and is referred to as the HTGR cogeneration plant in the following.
Figure 19 compares the price of electricity and steam from the HTGR Cogeneration plant with
electricity and steam prices generated from NGCC plants as a function of the price of natural gas. A range
of electricity and steam prices are shown for the HTGR plant. This range covers variations in internal rate
of return on equity from 10 to 15% (low to high price). As noted on the figure, the correlations of
electricity price for NGCC plants as a function of natural gas price were developed from EIA data in the
Annual Energy Outlook 2011 report on the projected price of generating electricity using several different
technologies. The steam price variation with natural gas price was developed by General Atomics in a
mature HTGR conceptual design report prepared under a cooperative agreement with the DOE.6 As
shown, HTGR plant pricing is comparable to historical natural gas prices in the $6 to $8/MMBtu range,
depending on the IRR assumed. This indicates that the HTGR plant can be competitive with natural gas
fired plants for the conditions evaluated.
e
These values were generated in Excel files HTGR Economics; 4_600, 6_600, 6_350 & 10_350 MW(t); 10IRR, respectively.
30
Electricity & Steam Price, $/Mwhe & $/1000 lbs
160
The NGCC Electricity Price data is based on EIA data from

Annual Energy Outlook 2011
140
Historical steam prices are based on data supplied by

General Atomics as part of development of the SC-MHR
report (2011)
NGCC Industrial
Electricity Prices, $/MWhe
The electricity and steam prices for the HTGR plant cover a
range of IRRs from 10% (lower value) to 15%
120
The prices were calculated for 80% Debt, 8% Interest, 20

years financing, 60 year plant life
100
80
HTGR Electricity Price, $/MWhe

60
40
Historical Industrial Steam Prices, $/1000 lbs

20
HTGR Steam Price, $/1000 lbs
0
0
10
12
14
16
Natural Gas Price, $/MMBtu
Figure 19. Comparison of HTGR Prices with natural gas plant [Excel file Economics 6-600 MW(t) IRR
Variation 10-26-10].
Because of the early development phase of the HTGR plant design, there is large uncertainty in the
capital and operating costs for the plant and the financial factors that will be in place when the plant is
deployed. The following summarizes the results of additional analyses that were performed to evaluate
the impact of these uncertainties in the cost and financial factors on the range of potential product pricing
for the HTGR cogeneration plant.
Figures 20 and 21 present tornado charts showing the impact of variations in key factors on the price
of electricity and steam from the HTGR cogeneration plant. The required internal rate of return on equity
and the cost of the plant have the most influence on the required pricing of electricity and steam. These
tornado charts illustrate the influence of individual parameters on the necessary pricing to meet the
required internal rate of return. It is not appropriate to combine the effects of multiple parametric
variations shown on these charts. Instead, Figures 22 and 23 show the combined effects of these
variations in the form of probability distributions for electricity, steam, and heat prices. These charts were
developed using a 10,000 step Monte Carlo Simulation applying triangular distributions over the
extremes identified for each parameter in Figures 20 and 21. Figures 22 and 23 also show the relevant
statistics for each price. Note that the mean values are generally higher than the baseline values for
electricity and steam supplied from the HTGR plant. Referring to Figures 20 and 21, this is because the
effects of the largest contributors to uncertaintyrequired IRR and plant costtend to bias the
distribution to higher pricing. In any event, the differences in the statistical means and the baseline values
are not significant. The relatively large standard deviations reflect the large uncertainty in the values of
the key parameters. As the design of the HTGR evolves, these uncertainties will be reduced and more
confidence developed in the economics of its application to this and other industrial applications. f
f
The tornado charts and the figures from the Monte Carlo analyses were developed in Excel file Waterford HTGR
Economics_6_600 MW(t)_10IRR_Monte_Carlo 9-7-11 and Waterford Cogen 6-600 MW(t) Monte Carlo Results.
31
8% IRR
-30% TCI
$57.84
$77.65
$52.76
6% Interest
$75.49
$58.59
$70.43
25 year Loan Term
$62.84
100% Debt/0% Equity
$62.86
15% IRR
10% IRR
+30% TCI
TCI
10% Interest
8% Interest
10 year Loan Term
$68.03
20 year Loan Term
50% Debt/50% Equity
$66.53
44.12
54.12
64.12
0
10
20
Product Selling Price ($/MWe-hr) - Baseline of $64.12 0
10
20
30
40
80% Debt/20% Equity
50
Baseline Sensitivity
Values
Figure 20. Effect of variations in key economic parameters on the price of electricity.
8% IRR
-30% TCI
6% Interest
$9.14
$12.27
$8.34
$11.93
$9.27
$11.13
25 year Loan Term
$9.93
100% Debt/0% Equity
$9.94
15% IRR
10% IRR
+30% TCI
TCI
10% Interest
8% Interest
10 year Loan Term
$10.75
20 year Loan Term
50% Debt/50% Equity
$10.52
7.13
8.13
9.13
10.13
0
1
2
Product Selling Price ($/1000-lb) - Baseline of $10.13
3
0
10
20
30
Figure 21. Effect of variations in key economic parameters on the price of steam.
32
40
80% Debt/20% Equity
50
Baseline Sensitivity
Values
Fore ca st: E le cP rice
Ce ll: B2
Summary:
Entire range is from $42.61 to $110.17
Base case is $64.12
After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is $0.10
Statistics:
Trials
Mean
Median
Mode
Standard Deviation
Variance
Skewness
Kurtosis
Coeff. of Variability
Minimum
Maximum
Range Width
Mean Std. Error
Forecast values
10,000
$68.54
$68.07
--$9.98
$99.57
0.2460
2.82
0.1456
$42.61
$110.17
$67.56
$0.10
Figure 22. Electricity price, $/MWheprobability distribution and statistics.
33
Fore ca st: S te a m_1000lbs
Ce ll: E 3
Summary:
Entire range is from 6.74 to 17.41
Base case is 10.14
After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.02
Statistics:
Trials
Mean
Median
Mode
Standard Deviation
Variance
Skewness
Kurtosis
Coeff. of Variability
Minimum
Maximum
Range Width
Mean Std. Error
Forecast values
10,000
10.83
10.76
--1.58
2.49
0.2460
2.82
0.1456
6.74
17.41
10.68
0.02
Figure 23. Steam price, $/1,000 lbprobability distribution and statistics.
34
6.
PRELIMINARY SITE HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

6.1
Summary of Results
An assessment was performed as part of the evaluation of the siting an HTGR cogeneration plant on
the Waterford site to determine hazards and potential challenges that HTGR owners and HTGR designers
need to be aware of when developing the HTGR design for the assumed co-location with the existing
Waterford-3 nuclear plant on this site and nearby industrial facilities, and to evaluate the potential
locations for the HTGR plant for suitability, considering certain Waterford site characteristics. The
objectives of the site hazard assessments were to do an initial screening of representative locations in
order to identify potential challenges and restraints to be addressed in design and licensing processes,
evaluate potential HTGR locations on the Waterford site for potential hazards and describe some of the
actions that may be necessary to mitigate impacts of hazards; and provide key insights that can inform the
plant design process.
The report of this assessment5 presents a summary of the process methodology and the results of the
assessment. The assessment considered health and safety, and other important siting characteristics to
determine the potential impact of identified hazards and potential challenges presented by the location for
this technology. The assessment was conducted based on the methodology for evaluating key
characteristics of a site as presented in NGNP-LIC-ETR-RPT-0001, Procedure for Site Hazards
Evaluation and Impact Assessment.
Because the HTGR designs are still evolving in the early design phases, a great deal of specific
information (i.e., key site parameters that bear on the design and site characteristics assumed in the
design) was not available to support this assessment. However, some plant parameter envelope
information from General Atomics for the Gas-Turbine, Modular Helium Reactor design was used in
limited applications to support this assessment (e.g., bounding water use requirements, accident source
term, and foundation embedment depth). The assessment collected the majority of information to inform
HTGR designers on the hazards that might affect the licensing and operation of the HTGR from the Final
Safety Analysis Report for Waterford-3.
This assessment concludes that the Waterford site appears to be viable for siting the HTGR plant. The
assessment identified questions concerning technical and environmental factors that would require further
evaluation if siting of a cogeneration plant were to be pursued prior to proceeding with formal site
permitting and HTGR deployment. The more significant of the questions that could affect the HTGR
plant design (technology or site geotechnical) and construction mitigation actions are:
The proximity of a nearby railroad line to the site presents potential issues with respect to impacts
from hazardous materials and security. Physical security considerations may create some specific
needs for the design, and will require further evaluation, depending on the final location selected for
siting the reactors and the surveillance technology selected.
The site exhibits near surface groundwater conditions in soils that are prone to settlement when
dewatered. This can create a risk of localized surface subsidence during the dewatering operations
that would accompany construction and potentially operation of an HTGR facility.
Equilibrated groundwater hydrodynamic pressures on the basemat (at approximately 160-ft deep) of
the post-constructed HTGR facility must be considered in the HTGR facility design.
Current and future planned flood protection and mitigation features in the vicinity of the site, such as
levee systems, reservoirs, and diversion structures, which are maintained by the US Army Corps of
Engineers, would need to be revalidated as applicable to adequate flood protection for newly installed
HTGR modules at this site.
35
All of these will require further evaluation during the design process but are judged to not disqualify
this site for locating this HTGR plant.
The above summary listing does not include other challenges and potential hazards on or around the
Waterford site, such as the bulk storage of hazardous substances at neighboring industrial facilities.
Although these are important considerations for HTGR design and siting, they were not considered to be
significant HTGR challenges. Similar issues have previously been successfully addressed at Waterford-3.
Although requirements and acceptance criteria have been revised since the initial licensing of
Waterford-3, it is judged that these issues can be successfully addressed and resolved under current
regulation. While the evaluation in this report provides designers with preliminary insights they may have
to address in the HTGR design should this or any site similar to this location be identified for siting a new
nuclear plant, additional in-depth evaluations will be needed once a design is selected. These evaluations
would include detailed site investigations in the hydrological, geological, and meteorological areas.
Detailed evaluations will be needed to ensure physical security can be achieved, and additional detailed
environmental and sociological investigations and permitting actions will be required.
6.2
Interactive Considerations between HTGR and Waterford-3
An assessment was also performed to identify impacts that the construction and operation of the
HTGR facility may have on the existing Waterford-3 Nuclear Plant. The results of that assessment
include a number of items, including the following examples that need to be evaluated further, but are
judged based on this assessment to not disqualify this site for locating this HTGR plant:
Effects of postulated HTGR radiological releases on the existing safety systems, technical
specification requirements, and associated dose analyses
The potential need to integrate the security and emergency planning functions for Waterford-3 and
the HTGR facility
Hazards or impacts to be considered during the HTGR facilitys construction phase (site
access/egress, excavation, wind-generated construction-related missiles, etc.).
6.3
6.3.1
Other Considerations
Early Site Permit
Pursuit of an ESP is optional but should be considered as a part of the project licensing approach for
the HTGR facility because it can provide a relatively inexpensive vehicle for resolving site-related issues
early in the licensing process. The licensing process for obtaining NRC approval of the ESP involves:
performing a site characterization study and analysis of data for the chosen site location, completing a site
safety analysis based on the selected design or a plant parameter envelop, and preparing and submitting
an ESP report (license application). The ESP report is then reviewed by the NRC which may take
24 months. Public hearings are conducted prior to final approval of the ESP report. The overall process
may take as long as ~5 years from when the process starts.
36
7.
REFERENCES
1. Public Law 10958AUG. 8, 2005, Energy Policy Act of 2005, U.S. Congress, 2005.
2. Nelson, L., A. Gribik, V. Maio, M. McKellar, M. Patterson, and R. Wood, Integration of High
Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors into Industrial Process Applications, INL/EXT-09-16942, Idaho
National Laboratory, Revision 3, September 2011.
3. Nelson, L., A. Gandrik, M. McKellar, E. Robertson, M. Patterson, and R. Wood, Integration of High
Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors into Selected Industrial Process Applications, INL/EXT-1123008, Idaho National Laboratory, August 2011.
4. Idaho National Laboratory, High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor Projected Markets and
Preliminary Economics, INL/EXT-10-19037, Revision 1, August 2011
5. Idaho National Laboratory, NGNP Site 2, Hazards Assessment, INL/EXT-11-23178, September 2011.
6. General Atomics, Conceptual Design ReportSteam Cycle Modular Helium Reactor, (SC-MHR)
Demonstration Plant, NGNP-R00016, December 2010.
7. TEV-1196, Assessment of High Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR) Capital and Operating Costs,
Idaho National Laboratory Technical Evaluation, April 2011
8. TEV-988, Sensitivity of HTGR Heat and Power Production to Reactor Outlet Temperature,
Economic Analysis, Revision 1, Idaho National Laboratory, July 8, 2011.
37

Evaluation of Siting An HTGR Co-Generation Plant On An Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Site

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Evaluation of Siting An HTGR Co-Generation Plant On An Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Site

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

INL/EXT-11-23282

Next Generation Nuclear

Next Generation Nuclear Plant Project Evaluation of

Idaho National Laboratory

Prepared for the

SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS......................................................................... 5

EVALUATION FOR SITING AN HTGR PLANT AT WATERFORD-3 ....................................... 8

POTENTIAL ENERGY OFF-TAKERS .......................................................................................... 17

NOTIONAL HTGR PLANT DESIGN ............................................................................................ 21

PRELIMINARY SITE HAZARDS ASSESSMENT ....................................................................... 35

Combined Operating License

exclusion area boundary

Energy Education Center

Energy Information Administration

Entergy Louisiana, LLC

Environmental Protection Agency

Early Site Permit

gas turbine combined cycle

high temperature gas-cooled reactor

Idaho National Laboratory

light water reactor

natural gas combined cycle

Next Generation Nuclear Plant

nuclear heat supply system

Next Generation Nuclear Plant Project Evaluation of

Figure 1. The Waterford site north of Highway 3127.

Figure 2. Waterford site and major industrial plants east of Waterford-3.

Completing an initial screening to identify potential challenges and restraints to be addressed in

Describing actions necessary to mitigate the impacts of hazards

SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

EVALUATION FOR SITING AN HTGR PLANT AT WATERFORD-3

Location and Specific Site Characteristics Affecting HTGR Plant

Figure 3. Composite survey of Waterford 1, 2, and 3 sites.

Figure 4. Preferred site for the HTGR plant.

Purchase/Lease Options (Provided by ELLs Real Estate Department)

Cooling Water Supply

Figure 7. Waterford-3 cooling water intake and discharge structures.

Transportation and Handling of Large Components

POTENTIAL ENERGY OFF-TAKERS

Installed Capacity 335 MW(e).

Steam to the processes (Based on data supplied to INL by Dow personnel):

Average Flowrate 1.50 million lb/hour

1.80 million lb/hour.

Taft Cogeneration Plant

Table 2. Taft cogeneration energy consumption and generation2009 and 2010.

Installed Capacity 895 MW(e).

Steam to the processes:

Average Flowrate 500,000 lb/hour

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

HTGR Plant Rating Alternatives

Alt 2: 100% of Installed

NOTIONAL HTGR PLANT DESIGN

Figure 11. Waterford HTGR cogeneration plant.

Condenser Load, MW(t)

Plant Layout and Configuration

HTGR Cogeneration Plant Schedule

HTGR COGEN PLANT DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, COMMISSIONING AND OPERATION

Design & Engineering Services During Construction

State and EPA Permitting

Long Lead and Commodity Procurement

1st Module Operational

Construction 1st Module

2nd Module Operational